Results 37 to 48 of 79
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Can you point to an ad from Romney or a Romney supporting Super PAC that is as equally disgusting?
Possibly, his staff damn sure knew about it.
What I was "trying to prove" is what you were wrong here:
-
08-10-2012, 01:49 PM #38Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
I was speaking Left v. Right in strict political spectrum terms, not political parties.
And we're not a Democracy or a Representative Democracy, ergo you cannot corrupt something that does not exist. We're a Representative Republic. Semantics maybe, but there IS a distinct, important difference -- the right to form coalitions (i.e. groups) to represent us and our interests. They are very much what the Framers intended (Federalist 58 I believe). They viewed Democracy as mob rule and rightly so, given what they knew of past, pure Democracies. Now granted, they may not have envisioned the level of funding we see today, but both sides enjoy their deep-pocket people, then and now. The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Whigs, etc all had their money-men. Just like now.
So yes, that's precisely how it's supposed to work. Every person having an equal chance, rich or poor, famous or destitute. You versus Mr. Adelson is a straw man comparison. No, you cannot compete with Mr. Adelson and you're not supposed to. For every Mr. Adelson, there is a Mr. Soros. For every Koch brother, there is a Jeffrey Katzenberg.
The Roberts court simply reaffirmed the status-qua.
-
08-10-2012, 02:49 PM #39Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
I never claimed you thought the ad was unprecedented. I was just pointing out that the tone changed long before Citizens United.
The 'proliferation' is greatly exaggerated, and as I metioned the civility decline predates Citizen United. The big change was Bush v Gore when the left truly became unhinged. To the extent things have continued to get worse over time, I don't see how allowing more and freer speech would necessarily demand that the speech become more uncivil. So agree to disagree it is.
Citizen United did not loosen any of the speech restrictions you mentioned, and in my opinion "hate speech" doesn't belong in that list as it is merely a trendy new leftist catchall used in a nebulous and often-nefarious 'social justice' crusade.
As for our 'representative democracy,' it is the same as it ever was; everyone gets one vote, States and districts are weighted for population.
In terms of your concerns about "equal influence," it simply not the case that this has ever existed. Wealthy individuals and talented pols have always been allowed to produce quantities and qualities of speech that may carry a disproportionate influence (to the average citizen). But it has always been the case (and still is) that the voter is trusted to evaluate this speech, debate it, and decide for oneself how to vote.
To the extent that corporate or union monied interests are now able to extert more influence than before, I would say that history and economics have proven that powerful monied interests operating under an extensive regulatory state will always find a way exert a strong influence over politicians/politics. The best way to limit this 'problem,' if indeed it is/becomes serious, is not to tread on free speech rights, but rather to limit the size and scope of the government's power over industry. The more favors there are to buy, the more money will be spent on lobbying/influencing/buying politicians for the favors.
I wouldn't call you idealistic, but maybe naive and perhaps paranoid. You seem to fail to understand that the campaign finance restrictions you seem to be championing (as they were) had many harmful impacts of their own. The first is that they imposed huge legal costs on those wishing to participate in the political process, effectively shutting out smaller voices who could not afford to pay campaign lawyers and risk legal trouble in getting their messages across. In short, the "little guy" couldn't be heard due to the legal burden. The second is that campaign-expenditure limits had the effect of driving corporate/union money away from public dialogue and into channels that are more corrosive and less transparent (lobbyists, lawsuits, and regulatory capture).
On the contrary, the nastiness and sleaziness has been disproportionally seen on the left. And there are many explanations for it, from a sycophantic MSM that lets them get away with it (moreso than their opponents), to the not-so-common prolonged war (where such vitriol always has existed), to the continuing 'liberalization' of our colleges and universities (where biased, pseudo-scientific studies are now routinely conducted that show conservatives are predisposed to be stupid or racist or...<fill in your baseless smear> thereby giving some kind of intellectual veneer to a vapid argument).
But the most important explanation is one that has existed for decades now, and that is, the left ascribes to a philosophy of "by any means necessary" whereby civility is not even remotely close to as important as "winning." If you need to paint/label your critics as racists (homophobes, islamophobes, backwards morons, etc) despite a total dearth of evidence, go ahead and do it, the MSM won't call you on it, it is for a 'good cause,' and this is 'total war.' And when the odds you can win on the merits of reasoned arguments or your record diminish, the likelihood of using uncivil attacks increases (they are in a sense an always-available option which will be chosen more as other options are removed).
Since Obama's record is completely indefensible, and since "by any means necessary" is in full effect, the left is currently heavily relying on uncivil tactics. We are seeing the classic case of that right now between meek, milquetoast, Mormon Mitt and his "hey fella, c'mon, that was uncalled for, can't we all be civil" politics and bare-knuckle, gutter Daley/Alinsky/Axelrod/Obama and his "F*ck you, you felon, bigot, murderer" politics. And if Mitt doesn't take the gloves off (no pun intended), and I am not sure he has it in him to do it, he will lose.Last edited by Haloti92; 08-10-2012 at 03:35 PM.
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Great post Haloti.
One thing I disagree on and only slightly, is Mitt himself doesn't necessarily have to fight back as much has his campaign team, ads, surrogates VP etc. do, and then he has to in the debates.
Right now, I think he is (or could be) getting under Obama's skin by not getting pissed about it. I actually kind of liked his response when asked about this ad "it doesn't bother me, I've come to expect anything from a campaign that can't run on their record" (paraphrasing). Which IMO, is all this ad is - a distraction from the issues and BHO's record.
-
08-10-2012, 03:55 PM #41Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Mitt doesn't have to fight back himself, but the problem is that Mitt will be asked (hypocritically, obviously) to disavow any attack ads made by his surrogates (or anyone). He will be asked repeatedly by the in-the-tank-for-Obama MSM. And he has set a precedent in previous campaigns and previously in this campaign of actually doing that (he disavowed some ads linking Obama to Jeremiah Wright, for example) and indicating he would always take the high road. So while I agree he doesn't have to fully engage in the low-down fighting required, he will have to change his stance (get a bit more aggressive) a bit regarding such ads in general.
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
The ads, I mean attacks are working.
The people don't like them but they dislike Mitt even more.
-
08-14-2012, 02:14 PM #44Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Posts
- 856
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Please, the Republican party are the master of lies. I know it sucks when you guys have to take a taste of your own medicine, but welcome to dirty politics. "Independent" news sources such as Fox News have done a GREAT job of smearing Obama for the past 4 years, and very little of it is actually factual.
-
08-14-2012, 02:25 PM #45Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
08-14-2012, 02:33 PM #46Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Posts
- 856
Both parties have been lying through their teeth. It's hypocritical to point out one and not the other
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
-
-
08-14-2012, 02:43 PM #48
I stop listening to anyone who throws out the ol' Fox News bullshit that can never be backed up.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
Bookmarks